ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i don't know of any historian that makes that claim
again, you appear to be confused about what i wrote
perhaps if you go back and read it again
America colonisation ‘cooled Earth's climate’
- Thread starter aCultureWarrior
- Start date
i don't know of any historian that makes that claim
again, you appear to be confused about what i wrote
perhaps if you go back and read it again
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So we can both agree that supposed 'modern day historians' have it wrong that British General Jeffrey Amherst was responsible for introducing smallpox to the North American Indians
Now that I've shown that smallpox had been in the America's over 200 years before the alleged conspiracy to infect American Indians via blankets, how about we both agree that American Indian activist Ward Churchill is bold face liar? ("Jump through some hoops" and say it).
"Every aspect of Churchill's tale is fabricated. Between 1994 and 2003, Ward Churchill published at least six different versions of this accusation against the U.S. Army. While the Mandans and other Indians of the Upper Plains did suffer horribly from a smallpox epidemic in 1837, Churchill presents no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the infection was anything but accidental, or that the U.S. Army was in any way involved. Fort Clark was a privately owned fur trading outpost, not a military base, and there were no U.S. troops in the vicinity. The closest U.S. military unit was an eight hundred mile march away at Fort Leavenworth."
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5...ox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
and you won't be linking supposed evidence saying that he did in the future?
Yeah, the letter that you posted could make people believe that the American Indians really were eradicated by blankets permeated with smallpox. How about the next time you post that you put a little * next to it?
*The above is a lie.
So we can both agree that supposed 'modern day historians' have it wrong that British General Jeffrey Amherst was responsible for introducing smallpox to the North American Indians
Now that I've shown that smallpox had been in the America's over 200 years before the alleged conspiracy to infect American Indians via blankets, how about we both agree that American Indian activist Ward Churchill is bold face liar? ("Jump through some hoops" and say it).
"Every aspect of Churchill's tale is fabricated. Between 1994 and 2003, Ward Churchill published at least six different versions of this accusation against the U.S. Army. While the Mandans and other Indians of the Upper Plains did suffer horribly from a smallpox epidemic in 1837, Churchill presents no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the infection was anything but accidental, or that the U.S. Army was in any way involved. Fort Clark was a privately owned fur trading outpost, not a military base, and there were no U.S. troops in the vicinity. The closest U.S. military unit was an eight hundred mile march away at Fort Leavenworth."
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5...ox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
and you won't be linking supposed evidence saying that he did in the future?
Yeah, the letter that you posted could make people believe that the American Indians really were eradicated by blankets permeated with smallpox. How about the next time you post that you put a little * next to it?
*The above is a lie.
As much as I would love to agree with you, I'm not in a politically correct mood today so I can't say that people that brought Judeo-Christian laws and culture to what is now called the United States of America were on an equal basis with a pagan people who committed all kinds of barbaric acts.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
yes, you've shown something that wasn't in dispute
not alleged and not conspiracy - rather a military decision by Amherst to reduce his opponent's numbers with any means available, captured in his hand in the original documentation and disputed by no historian i know of
i don't know who ward churchill is and i'm not interested in learning about him
people suffering from a staggeringly high degree of mental retardation, perhaps
i don't usually tailor my writing to the potential intellectual deficiencies of my audience - i usually assume they're fairly intelligent
but i'll try to keep you in mind next time :thumb:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
me neither - the ability of the european colonizers to wage war and their will and determination to push through to victory were far superior
Last edited:
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
As much as I would love to agree with you, I'm not in a politically correct mood today so I can't say that people that brought Judeo-Christian laws and culture to what is now called the United States of America were on an equal basis with a pagan people who committed all kinds of barbaric acts.
That a boy, I knew I could get you to come out and be a ferocious defender of your people.
That being said: Scalping has a whole new meaning these days:
As much as I would love to agree with you, I'm not in a politically correct mood today so I can't say that people that brought Judeo-Christian laws and culture to what is now called the United States of America were on an equal basis with a pagan people who committed all kinds of barbaric acts.
That a boy, I knew I could get you to come out and be a ferocious defender of your people.
That being said: Scalping has a whole new meaning these days:
The Berean
Well-known member
When one group has guns, steel, and horses, and another group does not the outcome is predictable. The European colonizers had the will, motivation, and desire to conquer an entire continent. Two actually. And that's exactly what they did. This part of history has always fascinating me. The Puritans than came to America is a fascinating story.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The natives shot themselves in the foot by maintaining their ancient grudges that they all held against each other. If they had instead joined forces, they could have mounted a serious defense, but since they insisted on not cooperating with each other, they basically did the 'divide' part of 'divide and conquer' for us. I would say that given that, plus all what you said, made the outcome predictable.
You're right. But that's only part of it. Jared Diamond lists some of the major geographic reasons that the peoples of Eurasia overcame the peoples in the Americas:
Guns, Germs, and Steel makes a compelling case for the reasons why Eurasians had better immunity, better technology, and mounted troops that insured the defeat of American societies.
https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-S...393377&sr=8-1&keywords=''guns+germs+and+steel
One would think that in a Christian forum that people would be happy that Judeo-Christian laws and culture, and specifically the Christian faith would be brought to a land inhabited by pagans.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
gross population reduction and the resultant social upheaval were primary factors - the best guesses are that the death toll from disease alone reduced native american (north central and south) populations by 40-80 % before 1700
imagine what that would do to our social structure - actually, you don't have to imagine, a similar population reduction from disease had occurred in Europe three centuries earlier, with fairly well-documented effects on social structures - the glue that kept Europe from totally unraveling, of course, was the Catholic church
if the native americans had any similar structure, it has been lost to history - but the archeological evidence regarding trade suggests that the pre-Colombian indigenous peoples were more cooperative than competitive
a further amplifying effect was the reliance on oral tradition as a vehicle for transmission of accumulated knowledge - without written records, centuries/millennia of acquired wisdom was concentrated in fragile vessels that disappeared
and it's worth mentioning that my familiarity with the topic is centered on the native peoples that the french and English colonizers in the northeast encountered - i don't have much familiarity with the PacNW, for example, or the plains indians
Last edited:
Now that TOL's liberals have told us how evil the European (white) settlers were, let's be politically incorrect for a moment and read about what TOL's liberals and their liberal public schools don't teach:
Were the Indians Noble Savages?
...Many of the Indians were brutal savages, even cannibals! The New Columbia Encyclopedia reported on some Northwest tribes like the Kwakiutl: “They had a highly classified society with chiefs, nobles, commoners, and slaves….This distinctive culture, which included cannibalistic rituals, was not greatly affected by European influences until after the late 18th century….” Yes, some Indians kept slaves and ate them during hard times!
...You are supposed to feel guilty for being white, middle class, and Protestant (or Baptist) especially relating to what we have done to the land since taking it from the “noble savage.” But was the Indian so careful with the environment? The Columbia Encyclopedia tells about the Choctaws: “…They hunted with bow and arrow and blowgun, caught fish by poisoning streams….” Yes, friends and neighbors, the “noble savage” was often a polluter.
...Before getting into the Indians’ story, I need to “clear out the underbrush” so we can see the forest. One writer wrote of white men who “took over their [Indian] world,” but where did he get the idea that this world [America] belonged to the Indians? Need I remind you that merely living on the land does not confirm ownership? The Indians had lived here for hundreds of years but were still living in crude homes; eating and warming themselves over an open fire; and letting their old people die alone without help.
...If the white man had not beached his boats on the sands of Jamestown, Plymouth Rock, and Cape Cod, the Indians would still be huddled around their soot-lined tepees warming themselves over a fire made by rubbing dry sticks together. They would still be burying their dead children because of childhood diseases...
...Yes, the Indians in Central and South America had a much more advanced civilization but I remind you they were still savages. In Mexico the Aztecs still sacrificed thousands of young virgins every year and literally jerked the hearts out of their enemies before they were burned on the altar.
When Cortes arrived in Mexico, his first tour of the capital turned his stomach. Montezuma (who is thought to be a highly civilized person by the uninformed) told Cortes that he could look at anything he wanted to see. Of course, what else do you tell a man who has 450 men with guns?
Cortes and some of his men walked through the market place where human meat was sold, then climbed up the 114 steps to the temple for a view of the city below. They saw helpless prisoners tied to stone slabs waiting to be sacrificed to the Aztec gods. As they walked through the square, they saw a rack that held the skulls of more than 100,000 victims, a monument to Montezuma’s savagery.
Cortes and other white Europeans (who for the most part were only Christianized, not Christians) did not have clean hands in their dealing with the Indians. They proved what every honest, informed person knows: man’s heart (of all races) is evil and needs the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
http://www.cstnews.com/bm/other-hot...ws/were-the-indians-noble-savages~print.shtml
Aztec tower of skulls
Were the Indians Noble Savages?
...Many of the Indians were brutal savages, even cannibals! The New Columbia Encyclopedia reported on some Northwest tribes like the Kwakiutl: “They had a highly classified society with chiefs, nobles, commoners, and slaves….This distinctive culture, which included cannibalistic rituals, was not greatly affected by European influences until after the late 18th century….” Yes, some Indians kept slaves and ate them during hard times!
...You are supposed to feel guilty for being white, middle class, and Protestant (or Baptist) especially relating to what we have done to the land since taking it from the “noble savage.” But was the Indian so careful with the environment? The Columbia Encyclopedia tells about the Choctaws: “…They hunted with bow and arrow and blowgun, caught fish by poisoning streams….” Yes, friends and neighbors, the “noble savage” was often a polluter.
...Before getting into the Indians’ story, I need to “clear out the underbrush” so we can see the forest. One writer wrote of white men who “took over their [Indian] world,” but where did he get the idea that this world [America] belonged to the Indians? Need I remind you that merely living on the land does not confirm ownership? The Indians had lived here for hundreds of years but were still living in crude homes; eating and warming themselves over an open fire; and letting their old people die alone without help.
...If the white man had not beached his boats on the sands of Jamestown, Plymouth Rock, and Cape Cod, the Indians would still be huddled around their soot-lined tepees warming themselves over a fire made by rubbing dry sticks together. They would still be burying their dead children because of childhood diseases...
...Yes, the Indians in Central and South America had a much more advanced civilization but I remind you they were still savages. In Mexico the Aztecs still sacrificed thousands of young virgins every year and literally jerked the hearts out of their enemies before they were burned on the altar.
When Cortes arrived in Mexico, his first tour of the capital turned his stomach. Montezuma (who is thought to be a highly civilized person by the uninformed) told Cortes that he could look at anything he wanted to see. Of course, what else do you tell a man who has 450 men with guns?
Cortes and some of his men walked through the market place where human meat was sold, then climbed up the 114 steps to the temple for a view of the city below. They saw helpless prisoners tied to stone slabs waiting to be sacrificed to the Aztec gods. As they walked through the square, they saw a rack that held the skulls of more than 100,000 victims, a monument to Montezuma’s savagery.
Cortes and other white Europeans (who for the most part were only Christianized, not Christians) did not have clean hands in their dealing with the Indians. They proved what every honest, informed person knows: man’s heart (of all races) is evil and needs the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
http://www.cstnews.com/bm/other-hot...ws/were-the-indians-noble-savages~print.shtml
Aztec tower of skulls
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
reading comprehension really isn't your strong point, is it?
Probably a product of public schools. :sigh:
The Berean
Well-known member
What First Nations tribes were located in the Northeast?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
many, but i grew up and live in the heart of the Iroquois confederacy region - what became the six nations - the Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca and Tuscarora
Good ole Aaron, always trying to straddle the fence so he'll appear as a moderate.
As we've seen, your peeps weren't as innocent as you Liberaltarians make them out to be.
That being said: There have been many successful conversions to Christianity by American Indians. If it weren't for those slave owning-adulterous Founding Fathers and the theocratic Puritans before them, who knows what human culinary delights the American Indian would be enjoying today.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
or maybe you're just mentally ill :idunno:
The Berean
Well-known member
Do you know of some good books on the history of the Iroquois confederacy? Wikipedia says it was founded by someone named "The Peacemaker" in the 12th century. There's been great debate as to how much influence did the structure of Iroquois confederacy have on the Framers of the US Constitution? Ben Franklin spoke and wrote about the Iroquois confederacy a fair amount.many, but i grew up and live in the heart of the Iroquois confederacy region - what became the six nations - the Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca and Tuscarora
I did a little research on "The Peacemaker"
The Peacemaker and the Great Law of Peace
The Peacemaker
In the 12th Century, five nations in what is now the northeastern U.S. were constantly at war: the Mohawks, Seneca, Oneida, Onondaga and Cayugas. The wars were vicious and, according to tribal history, included cannibalism.
One day, a canoe made of white stone carried a man, born of a virgin, across Onondaga Lake to announce The Good News of Peace had come and the killing and violence would end.
He traveled from village to village over the course of years, preaching peace because peace was the desire of the Creator. Oral history says it may have taken him 40 years to reach everyone and get agreement from all five nations.
This man became known as The Peacemaker.
https://www.mollylarkin.com/the-history-u-s-constitution-we-werent-taught-school/
Sounds like the savages had their own Jesus Christ.
Of course it's yet another liberal lie that our nation's founding documents were based on the Iroquois Confederacy, as they knew nothing of the Holy Bible, which is the basis of the US Constitution and our God-given rights as seen in the Declaration of Independence.
To better understand the Constitution, read your Bible
https://www.philly.com/philly/opini...ding-documents-church-and-state-20180917.html
Also remember that the Founding Fathers abhorred democracies, they gave us a Constitutional Republic not the representative democracy that the Six Nations had.